Document

Irina Gross, D.P.M.; Decision and Order

Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration On November 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Irina ...

Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration

On November 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Irina Gross, D.P.M., of Chagrin Falls, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FG2593487, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.” Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).

The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 1, at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing, and the Agency finds her to be in default. RFAA, at 1.[1] “A default, unless excused, shall be ( printed page 38017) deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.” Id. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, effective June 11, 2025, the State Medical Board of Ohio suspended Registrant's Ohio Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM) license and Registrant's Ohio Respiratory Care Professional (RCP) license. RFAAX 1, at 2.

According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, both Registrant's Ohio DPM license and Ohio RCP license are permanently revoked.[2] eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure License Lookup, https://elicense.ohio./​oh_​verifylicense (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice podiatric medicine nor respiratory care in Ohio, the state in which she is registered with DEA.[3]

Discussion

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”

With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (“The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled substances. 802(21).”).[4] The Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D.,76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D.,43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).

According to Ohio statute, “[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog,” except “pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §  2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2025). Further, a “ `[l]icensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber' means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the individual's professional practice.” Id. § 4729.01(I). Ohio statute further defines an authorized prescriber as “[a] physician authorized under Chapter 4731. of the [Ohio] Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.” Id. § 4729.01(I)(5). Additionally, Ohio law permits “[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the laws regulating the professional's practice” to prescribe or administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to patients. Id. § 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).

Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice podiatric medicine and respiratory care in Ohio. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs in order to handle controlled substances in Ohio. Thus, because Registrant is not a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs in Ohio and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.

Order

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FG2593487 issued to Irina Gross, D.P.M. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Irina Gross, D.P.M., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Irina Gross, D.P.M., for additional registration in Ohio. This Order is effective July 24, 2026.

Signing Authority

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on June 16, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for ( printed page 38018) publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Heather Achbach,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.

Footnotes

1.  Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated February 5, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that shortly after the DI received a copy of the OSC, the DI attempted to locate Registrant for personal service, however, the DI was unsuccessful. RFAAX, at 2. On or about November 24, 2025, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to two different registered email addresses for Registrant, and the delivery of those emails was successful. Id.; see also RFAAX 3, at 2-3 (notifications of successful delivery of both emails). Here, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and that the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were “ `reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' ” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.,82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful).

Back to Citation

2.  Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” United States Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).

Back to Citation

3.  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), “[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.” The material fact here is that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to practice podiatric medicine nor respiratory care in Ohio. Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the Agency's finding by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by email to the other party and to the DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at .

Back to Citation

4.  This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D.,71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.,58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D.,53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27617.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2026-12650 Filed 6-23-26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

Legal Citation

Federal Register Citation

Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.

91 FR 38016

Web Citation

Suggested Web Citation

Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.

“Irina Gross, D.P.M.; Decision and Order,” thefederalregister.org (June 24, 2026), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2026-12650/irina-gross-d-p-m-decision-and-order.